Skip to main content

Life Sciences is now live. See how →

Patent Examiner Nathan L. Van Sell

Art Unit 1783 · Laminates, Films, Glass, Ceramics & Coated Articles · Tech Center 1700 · 295 applications filed 2021–2026

⚑ Very Hard · harder than 81% of examiners● Free examiner data

Nathan L. Van Sell is a USPTO patent examiner in Art Unit 1783 (Laminates, Films, Glass, Ceramics & Coated Articles) with 295 applications from filing years 2021–2026. Examiner Van Sell's allowance rate is 62.7%, below the 82.6% USPTO average for applications filed in the same years. The examiner ranks harder than 81% of examiners. In 2022, decided applications with an examiner interview were allowed 43.1 percentage points more often than those without.

Draft a response to Examiner Van SellSee the strategy data ↓

Data through October 2026 from USPTO Patent Center (formerly PAIR) · Methodology

Overview

Free
Difficulty · Very Hard
harder than 81% of examiners
Easier81st percentileHarder
Allowance rate vs peers
Examiner Van Sell62.7%
Art Unit 178371.8%
USPTO average82.6%
Allowance rate
62.7%
▼ USPTO avg 82.6%
Applications
295
filing years 2021–2026
First-action allowance
3.8%
patented with no rejection
Abandoned
23.4%
share of applications
Avg office actions
2.0
USPTO avg 1.2
Days to first OA
596
USPTO 605
RCE rate
35.6%
USPTO 18.1%
Interview rate
29.5%
USPTO 25.9%

Examiner details

  • Art unit1783 · Laminates, Films, Glass, Ceramics & Coated Articles
  • Title / gradePrimary Patent Examiner · GS-14
  • Service16 years
  • Phone(571) 270-5152
  • LocationAlexandria, VA 22314
  • In USPTO recordsVAN SELL, NATHAN L
Full signatory authority

Examiner Van Sell can allow an application without a supervisory sign-off.

Examines (USPC classes)
428 · Stock Material or Miscellaneous Articles

How to improve your odds with Examiner Van Sell

  • The data favors an interview. Interviewed cases were allowed more often in all 4 measured years, by 30.6 to 83.3 points.
  • The timeline tracks the norm. First office action averages 596 days vs the 605-day USPTO norm.
  • Expect a §103. Obviousness is the most-issued rejection (335), and applicants overcame it 45.3% of the time.
  • The data favors an RCE here. Cases with an RCE were allowed more often in all 4 measured years, by 13.0 to 26.7 points.

Historical patterns from this examiner's past cases, shown for general information. This is not legal advice and does not predict the outcome of any specific application. Decisions about interviews, RCEs, and claim strategy should be made with a licensed patent attorney or agent.

Rejection patterns & how they get overcome

Free
§102 Novelty60 issued · 58.5% overcome
§103 Obviousness335 issued · 45.3% overcome
§112 Definiteness & disclosure116 issued · 65.9% overcome
How applicants traverse §103 rejections🔒 Members

Of the 56 winning responses to Examiner Van Sell's §103 rejections that Boundly has classified, 44 (79%) amended the claims and argued, 10 argued without amending, and 2 amended without arguing. Each winning response, with its arguments and claim amendments, is in the file wrapper.

Read the winning §103 argumentsFull REMARKS, amendments, claim trees & redlines from the file wrappers
Start free

Just got an office action from Examiner Van Sell?

Draft your response with Examiner Van Sell's record and Art Unit 1783's history in view, including the rejection patterns, the interview record, and the arguments that have overcome them. See how Boundly assists with office action responses.

Open AI Studio free →

RCE behavior

Allowance after a Request for Continued Examination versus without one, per year. Use it to judge whether an RCE is worth the cost in front of Examiner Van Sell.

YearRCE rateAllowance w/ RCEAllowance w/oDelta
202416.7%60.0%33.3%+26.7pp
202334.4%88.9%75.9%+13.0pp
202241.1%81.8%59.5%+22.3pp
202156.5%62.9%43.3%+19.6pp

Recent outcomes

Free🔒 Case detail for members
App #TitleOutcomeOAsArguments & redline
18/406822Window, Display Device Including the Window, and Method of Manufacturing the WindowPatented1🔒 View
17/896787Process for In-Line Extrusion Coatings onto Roofing Shingles During Manufacturing and Roofing Shingles Made by the ProcessPatented7🔒 View
17/447882Abrasive Particles Having Particular Shapes and Methods of Forming Such ParticlesPatented8🔒 View
18/233989Cold Draw Programmable Grayscale Digital Light Processing 3D Printed Shape-Morphing Structures and Methods of Forming the SamePatented1🔒 View
See all 295 applications with full file-wrapper detailOffice action text, attorney arguments, amendments & claim-by-claim track changes
Start free

Art Unit 1783 technology

Multilayer films & laminatesGlass & ceramic materialsCoated articlesBattery componentsTop CPC B32B · B29C · C09J
About this examiner. Nathan L. Van Sell examines in Art Unit 1783 (Laminates, Films, Glass, Ceramics & Coated Articles, Tech Center 1700). The art unit's docket includes multilayer films & laminates, glass & ceramic materials, coated articles, and battery components.

Frequently asked questions

What is Examiner Nathan L. Van Sell's allowance rate?
Examiner Van Sell's allowance rate is 62.7%, compared with 82.6% across the USPTO and 71.8% in Art Unit 1783 for applications filed in the same years. That rate ranks Examiner Van Sell harder than 81% of examiners.
Is Examiner Van Sell a hard examiner?
Yes. Examiner Van Sell ranks harder than 81% of examiners, in the 81st difficulty percentile (very hard). Examiner Van Sell has a 62.7% allowance rate versus 82.6% across the USPTO and 71.8% in Art Unit 1783, 2.0 office actions per application versus 1.2, and an RCE rate of 35.6% versus 18.1% across the USPTO, for applications filed in the same years.
Do examiner interviews help with Examiner Van Sell?
In this examiner's record, yes. Decided applications with an interview were allowed more often in each of the 4 measured years, by 30.6 to 83.3 percentage points. In 2022, 95.5% of decided applications with an interview were allowed, versus 52.4% of those without.
What is Examiner Van Sell's most common rejection?
§103 obviousness, issued 335 times in the data. Applicants overcame it 45.3% of the time. Of the 56 winning responses Boundly has classified, 44 amended the claims and argued.
Is an RCE worth filing with Examiner Van Sell?
In this examiner's record, yes. Decided applications with an RCE were allowed more often in each of the 4 measured years, by 13.0 to 26.7 percentage points. In 2021, 62.9% of decided applications with an RCE were allowed, versus 43.3% of those without one.
How long until the first office action from Examiner Van Sell?
About 596 days on average, versus 605 days across the USPTO for applications filed in the same years.
How do I contact Examiner Nathan L. Van Sell?
Examiner Van Sell can be reached by phone at (571) 270-5152. The examiner's direct line is also listed at the end of the examiner's office actions.

Put Examiner Van Sell's data to work on your next response.

Full file-wrapper detail, winning arguments, and AI-assisted drafting in one workspace.

Start free
Statistics are computed by Boundly Prosecution Intel from USPTO Patent Center (formerly PAIR) file wrappers for filing years 2021–2026, refreshed regularly. Allowance rate (sometimes called grant rate) is the share of disposed applications that issued as patents. Office actions here are non-final and final rejections, so restriction requirements and allowances are not counted. USPTO benchmarks are weighted to each examiner's mix of filing years, and art-unit benchmarks to the art units and filing years of the examiner's own applications, so they compare like for like. The difficulty percentile ranks examiners, each counted once, so it can point the other way from the USPTO average, which counts applications. See how each number is computed. The year-by-year interview and RCE tables show up to four recent filing years, leaving out the newest one and any year with fewer than ten applications or five decided applications on either side. Historical data is provided for informational purposes only. Past examiner behavior does not guarantee future outcomes, and nothing here is legal advice or a substitute for advice from a licensed patent attorney or agent. Are you Nathan L. Van Sell, or see an error? Request a correction.